Paul Szabo

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during the presentation by the officials on Bill C-9, the question was raised about whether there was a move that would place economic objectives ahead of environmental objectives. That point was raised in the context that the provisions in Bill C-9 would permit the currently required environmental assessments to be waived or not be done simply because of the timing of other economic activity going on that the government would like to have proceed. That is what spawned the question about whether this was an issue where economic priorities trumped environmental priorities, and it is very troubling to me.

I am not sure what it says about government accountability, transparency, openness, public consultation, due process and matters like due diligence that we are required to have, but it would appear to me that the member's arguments are quite valid. I would be interested to know whether she feels there has been due diligence in the finance committee by members of Parliament.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for trying to deal with a whole grouping of report stage motions.

The point here and I am sure we are going to hear a lot about it, is that the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, includes a large number of items which were not in the budget speech nor in the budget document itself. There were some concerns expressed at the presentation the finance officials gave on Bill C-9. The air travellers security charge was one as was the elimination of the need for environmental assessments. The one that caught my eye, and I know the finance committee looked at it, deals with the possibility of privatizing some of AECL's assets.

In addition to the concerns regarding the air travellers security charge which the member has very legitimately raised, I wonder whether she could inform the House of approximately how many items in Bill C-9 are add-ons or have been slipped in outside of what was presented to the House in the budget. Were these items given due consideration at the finance committee when Bill C-9 was being considered?

[Privilege, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm for the rules and respect his right to present his views to the House but I have a couple of points. When I rose on a question of privilege, it was a privilege in the House not a privilege in committee, as he outlined for quite a long time.

The issue he discussed, which he quoted often, had to do with Standing Order 119, the subtitle of which is “Only members may vote or move motion” in a committee. It states:

Any Member of the House who is not a Member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

I agree with that. That is a member of a committee sitting at the table with the committee members, participating in the committee proceedings.

What the member may have failed to recognize is that the minister came to the committee meeting not to be a member of the committee but rather to be a witness. There are two different roles here. One is a witness called by the committee and one is a member of the committee who will question the witness.

I would refer the member, which may be helpful to him, to O'Brien and Bosc, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition 2009. On page 976, where it refers to committees, in the second paragraph it states:

This applies, as well, to parliamentarians belonging to other Canadian legislatures, because each of these assemblies, like the House of Commons, has the parliamentary privilege of controlling the attendance of its members...

There is no specific ruling governing voluntary appearances of members of the House of Commons before parliamentary committees. They may appear before a committee if they wish and, it states, have been invited. It says that members can appear voluntarily. They cannot be summonsed and cannot be compelled to appear but they can appear if they wish and have been invited.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was not invited by the committee. Accordingly, the chair had no recourse but to not allow her to be a witness at the committee, and that was the decision that was taken. If the member wants to argue whether or not there was an invitation, that is fine, but there was not.

He referred to somehow censuring the minister and the chair deciding a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, committee chairs have no authority whatsoever to censure any member for any action, nor do they have the right to determine on matters of personal privilege. Those matters come to the chamber and, if there is a problem at committee, a report must be given to the House so that it can be seen and it is the Speaker who will determine whether there is a case for censuring someone.

I appreciate the member's enthusiasm but if he had included those points, he would have found that most of the argument that he gave today was moot and not relevant to the point that I raised in terms of my personal privilege.

The final comments the member made in sort of a veiled threat about my being the chair and how I operate, I do not believe it is appropriate for an individual member to make comments on how he thinks another member is doing his or her job. It is not the member's position to judge, to make those allegations or to paint that picture of another member's work. It is unfortunate that he has done that and he may want to apologize for it but I will leave that up to him.

[Privilege, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member may want to consider withdrawing a remark. He referred to the member for Winnipeg Centre making a statement in my committee about lying his ass off. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The member for Winnipeg Centre is a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I am not a member of that committee. I may have been a room at the time, but I was certainly not the chair. He may want to withdraw the allegation that I did nothing to correct the statement of the member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Privilege, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I had no recourse.

I want to address the points and the allegations made within Standing Order 31 to demonstrate this. I appreciate that this is in reference to matters that occurred before a committee. The proceedings are on the public website of the Parliament of Canada.

I would simply like to indicate, with regard to the allegation from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, that I have contravened Standing Order 119, which states:

Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special, or legislative committee, may,--

And here is the operative part:

--unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

The terms of reference and the order of the day before the committee was with regard to a special study, a study of the allegations of deliberate interference in the release of information by the human resources department. The order said that the motion by the member for Malpeque also called specifically for witnesses. The first witness was the Minister of Human Resources Development and following, and it says specifically, at subsequent meetings other members listed. In fact, the witness that we had at committee yesterday was one such member.

The motion adopted by the committee specifically indicated that the minister would appear first and subsequently the other witnesses. That was an order of the committee. In fact, we had the minister before us on May 4. We invited her to appear, pursuant to the order of the committee, and she appeared, but she agreed only to appear for one hour, even though we requested a full meeting of two hours. However, we gave her the opportunity to address these allegations.

Yesterday at committee, we asked Mr. Ryan Sparrow, who was named in the motion, to appear and answer questions by the committee. Mr. Sparrow appeared but he also appeared with the minister who sat beside him at the witness table.

Before I commenced the meeting, I went to speak to the minister and Mr. Sparrow and I asked why the minister was here. She told me, “I'm here to answer questions for my departmental employee, my political adviser on communications”. I told her that that was not possible because we had called a specific witness, Mr. Ryan Sparrow, of whom members were prepared to ask questions. The minister had already appeared.

Section 119 is not applicable here because the committee specifically ordered that Mr. Sparrow would be the witness. We already had the minister and therefore it is the committee's ruling that the member is not permitted. It did not say she could. It said that we were here to see Mr. Ryan Sparrow on the matter before the committee.

Therefore, the whole premise of the S. O. 31 by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, based on section 119, has been complied with. The committee ordered what took place there and I told them but the minister would not accept the ruling of the chair.

I hate to say this, but when we started the questions at committee, the member for Guelph asked, “Why did you not say that in your email, that you were unable to give accurate figures?”. The witness responded, “'ll refer that question to the Minister”. The member for Guelph said, “Well I would rather you answer the question. You're the witness”.

The minister started to speak, notwithstanding, and she said: “Mr. Chair, may I intervene?”. I said, “No, I'm sorry, Minister. I've made a ruling”. She came back and said, “Mr. Chair, with all due respect, Mr. Sparrow operates under my delegated authority. Anything he does is under my authority, authority that I carry as Minister. Therefore, I have that authority. I respectfully request that I be allowed to exercise that authority myself”.

She was arguing with the chair of a committee, which is improper. I responded to her, “Yes, well, Madam Minister, the committee has already addressed this issue. In fact, it is the reason why in the motion we have specifically indicated that it wanted to have yourself and other witnesses at separate meetings so that this wouldn't happen. That is the motion adopted by the committee”. I went on to say, “I've made my ruling”.

The minister argued yet again with the chair of the committee saying, “Mr. Chair, I would actually refer you...”, and then she carried on. I said “order” to get order back in the committee but she carried on yet again even after I called for order, and said, “to the experts on the subject of ministerial accountability, O'Brien and Bosc, and Marleau and Montpetit, Guide for Ministers and that...”. I called for order yet a third time.

The minister refused to listen. She went on again to say, “The Minister is accountable and that is why I am here today because it is my authority...”. I will not read the whole transcript.

I advised the minister again, “Madam Minister, Parliament has the right to call for persons, papers or records--all persons. Members of Parliament are exempt from that. They can refuse to appear”.

“We have called Mr. Sparrow as an individual related to this matter before us to respond to our questions. The ministerial relationship of their staff is not going to supercede this committee's right to ask this person, whom we have duly called, to respond to questions. I will not entertain further debate on whether or not you can answer for Mr. Sparrow. My decision, based on a motion passed by the committee, is that Mr. Sparrow is going to answer the questions directed at him”.

All of that transpired before question period and yet, with the full knowledge that the minister was not invited, as she said in the answer in question period and that she came voluntarily, well of course, she came voluntarily without telling the committee she was coming and she voluntarily sat herself beside our witness and voluntarily declared that she would answer questions. I do not understand what we could do when the Conservatives argue that this is the first time in the history of Westminster parliamentary system that a minister has been denied the right.

Let us flip it on its head. I believe this is the first time in the history of the Westminster parliamentary system that a minister has tried to impose herself as a witness before a committee. Ministers do not have to appear and they cannot be compelled to appear before a committee. If we follow what the minister believes, which is that she is accountable and speaks on behalf of her employees, that would mean that any of those employees called before a committee would have the minister with them when it suits the minister's purpose and at her choice. That is improper because, if it were not in her best interest to appear, she would not. We cannot have a double standard here.

Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, with my privilege and the references that I must give to you from the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2009. I will be referring to O'Brien and Bosc.

First, I make reference to Standing Order 18 regarding the use of offensive words against either House or against a member thereof, in which the House is well familiar. I also refer to page 618, O'Brien and Bosc, where it states:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

I will go on and cite footnote 176, as it relates to Standing Order 18:

This includes any allegation that a Member has lied or misled the House.

This is a very important aspect. Certain allegations in the statement of the member for Selkirk—Interlake he knew were incorrect and yet he proceeded to make a statement in the House just one hour after the meeting.

Continuing with the quote at page 618, it states that:

Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by a substantive motion for which notice is required.

It should be noted that the chair made a ruling, referred to the ruling several times and not once did any member in that committee challenge the ruling of the chair. They had that opportunity to make argument at that time, not to bring it to the chamber and to disregard and disrespect your letter of February 29, 2009 in which you expressed your sincere concern about the deterioration of matters related to Standing Order 31.

I should indicate that I gave notice yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I had to wait for the blue. That is why I am rising today.

In Speaker Michener's ruling of June 19, 1959, on page 98 of O'Brien Bosc, it states, “Such a privilege confers gave responsibilities on those who are protected”. This refers to the immunity privileges that we have here that nothing we say in here can be used against us outside the chamber. The same goes for things that are said in committee. For instance, it goes on to say, “By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences”, and Mr. Speaker, this is very serious, he states:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them.

I believe that is the case. He goes on:

Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

I thought that is what you attempted to do, Mr. Speaker, in your February 29, 2009 letter.

Speaker Parent emphasized the need for members to use great care in exercising the right to speak freely in the House. In the footnote on the debate of September 30, 1994, page 6371, he states:

—paramount to our political and parliamentary systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind. However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues, as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be prudent in their tone and choice of words.

He goes on to say in footnote 170 on page 98 in the Debates of May 5, 1987:

Specifically, during a debate as well as during Question Period and other House proceedings, Members are bound by the Standing Orders and practices of the House with respect to the content of speeches and remarks. For example, Standing Order 18—

That is what I referred to, and it also:

—prohibits the use of disrespectful or offensive language in debate. Moreover, personal attacks, insults, obscene language or words that question a Member's integrity, honesty or character are not permitted. It is unparliamentary to state that a Member has deliberately misled the House.

As you yourself, Mr. Speaker, observed in 2002:

If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperiled.

This is very powerful. These are the fundamentals of Parliament. These are the fundamental issues which we must respect and defend.

I want to move on specifically with regard to statements in Standing Order 31. I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, page 525, with regard to unparliamentary language. It states:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect and integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.

I believe that is what is happening.

On November 18 I rose in the House on a similar point, and O'Brien and Bosc would have been helpful. In fact, that was the day it was tabled in the House. On page 614 of O'Brien and Bosc, there are some relevant references. It states:

Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty and character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.

It gives you, Mr. Speaker, the authority to order the withdrawal of statements which are inappropriate in this place. I think that was the thrust of your letter of February 29, 2009.

There is another reference that says that making allegations or insults or otherwise questioning the character, honesty or integrity of another member of Parliament are absolutely out of order. There are more references, but I believe I have provided sufficient argument at this time with regard to the content of these statements and the fact that the assertions are wrong technically or are incorrect or untruthful.

The minister cannot say that she voluntarily came to committee and she was denied her right to speak. She was not the witness. Maybe she entered the room voluntarily, but she is trying to aggrandize herself somehow that she did something and we did not let her do it. She was not called as a witness.

The statement that she made in this place during question period yesterday implying that she was there, ready to be accountable and the committee did not allow her to be accountable is nonsense. It is not true. Yet she said that it is true with a straight face, without a flinch, not saying the truth and looking like it is okay. I cannot believe it.

Being a chartered accountant, I am subject to rules of ethical conduct. I have been a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for over 35 years. However, this matter of privilege, the allegations against me, the attacks on my person, personal integrity, ethics and ability are serious.

It happened previously when I rose on a question of privilege on May 10 because the member for Peace River also attacked under Standing Order 31. This is the third time Standing Order 31 has been used to attack a member, which is chock full of statements which are simply not true.

I take this very seriously and I have taken the time to open up to the House on this matter. I believe the Speaker shares my concern, which he expressed in his letter. Speaker Parent once said that once it is on the record, it is hard to retract it. It is almost impossible. It is like telling a jury to disregard the comment.

At any point in time, there could be five million people watching the proceedings of this place. If we allow the chamber to be used to attack other members of Parliament without recourse or response at the point of time, those statements, on their own, will stand.

Could there be other potential consequences to a member after the fact? Could it be possible that these statements by themselves, in Hansard of yesterday, attacks and assertions about the character and integrity of another member of Parliament, would appear in somebody's election literature to show that this member is not worthy of being a member of Parliament? It is going to happen.

With due respect, this is a form of intimidation. It is a chill factor that every time a member of this place, whether it be in committee or here, challenges the government on any matter, it retaliates with bullying tactics to try to intimidate other members of Parliament so they will not move in that direction and not challenge the government. Our job is to hold the government accountable, to respect the rules of the Standing Orders of the House, the rules of the House of Commons, the practices and procedures of this place.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, of my privileges and of my rights, without intimidation, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise on a question of privilege arising out of statements made in the chamber yesterday which were, in my view, a personal attack on my person, on my integrity, on my honesty, on my character and on my honour as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, I gave notice to you on a matter arising out of the statement by the member for Selkirk—Interlake just after question period.

The reasons and the basis for making this statement, I think, are sustained by all of the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, had to issue a letter on February 26, 2009, to the House leaders of the House of Commons concerning members' statement made pursuant to Standing Order 31 in which you state:

In recent days a number of Members' Statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31 have caused me some concern.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 363 and 364, sets out guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at an early stage any trend in this direction. As such, I am writing to advise you that I will vigorously enforce the authority given to me by Standing Order 31 to cut off Members if, in my opinion, improper statements are made.

I am seeking your assistance in informing Members in your party of my approach in this regard.

It was carbon copied to the whips of the House of Commons, as well as to the two independent members of Parliament at the time.

I will begin by referencing the specific statement, because I believe that anyone who is following this would like to know what actually was said.

On page 2787 of the House of Commons Debates of yesterday, the member for Selkirk—Interlake rose and stated:

Mr. Speaker, by long-standing constitutional convention, any MP may attend and participate in any committee meeting. Standing Order 119 says:

Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

He goes on to state:

Today, defying the Standing Order—

My emphasis is on “defying the Standing Order”.

—the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—

Who is myself.

—forbade the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development from participating in its proceedings. This ruling was contrary to law and turned the committee into a kangaroo court.

Further, by denying the minister her legal right to participate, the chair was undermining the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability, a key principle of our Constitution. It is outrageous that the chair of the ethics committee, the member for Mississauga South, would reject the principle of ministerial accountability, all in an attempt to score cheap political points. He should be ashamed and he should resign.

Those are not just casual statements. This is an indictment of a member of Parliament. It is contrary to the spirit and the intent of your letter of February 26, 2009, to the House leaders.

It went further than that. During question period, a question was posed by the member for Peace River in which he asked:

Mr. Speaker, today is perhaps a precedent-setting day in the history of a Westminster system of parliament.

This morning a minister of the Crown appeared at committee as an individual. According to our system of government, she is ultimately accountable for her ministry and yet the opposition, led by the chair of that committee, [myself] dismissed our system of ministerial accountability and would not let her answer for her department or for herself.

Having been silenced this morning, I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources will now be permitted to speak and to share with this House her reaction to this seemingly unprecedented event.

The minister in response answered:

Mr. Speaker, today I voluntarily appeared before the ethics committee to answer questions about the department for which I am ultimately responsible. Shockingly, opposition members refused to allow me to speak.

This may be the first time in parliamentary history that a ministerial responsibility has been denied. Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of our parliamentary system.

This is proof that the opposition members are not in it for accountability or truth. They are just in it for themselves.

I think those statements from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, from the assertions of the member for Peace River and from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. are very clear.

Mr. Speaker, I need to rise on a question of privilege because I have no other recourse but to rise in the House to defend myself.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member an opportunity to finish his last line. The statistics are important background information to have.

I also want to ask him about the responsibility Quebec has for representing the interests of francophones across the rest of the country. They rely very heavily on a number of jurisdictions or services provided by Quebec, many of which are funded by the federal government in terms of providing services to francophones across the country.

[Privilege, May 10th, 2010]

I am serious.

I am reading from chapter 3, page 97 of O'Brien and Bosc, 2nd edition, “Misuse of Freedom of Speech”. I am quoting a ruling on a question of privilege by Speaker Fraser who spoke at length on the issue. He said, in part:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members in this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of the absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and tradition observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

Speaker Parent emphasized the need for Members to use great care in exercising their right to speak freely in the House.

He said, and this is from the footnote, the Debate September 30, 1994, page 6371, in which he states in part:

...paramount to our political and parliamentary systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind. However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues, as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be prudent in their tone and choice of words.

He goes to say in footnote 170, on page 98, the debates of May 5, 1987:

Specifically, during a debate as well as during Question Period and other House proceedings, Members are bound by the Standing Orders and practices of the House with respect to the content of speeches and remarks. For example, Standing Order 18—

I referred to that earlier. He goes on to say:

—prohibits the use of disrespectful or offensive language in debate. Moreover, personal attacks, insults, obscene language or words that question a Member's integrity, honesty or character are not permitted. It is unparliamentary to state that a Member has deliberately misled the House. As Speaker Milliken observed in 2002: “If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

This is very powerful. These are the fundamentals of Parliament. These are the fundamental issues that we must respect and defend.

I want to move on specifically with regard to statements by members under Standing Order 31. I refer to unparliamentary language referred to in Marleau and Montpetit on page 525. With regard to unparliamentary language particularly related to any statement, it says:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.

I believe that is what is happening.

On November 18 I rose in the House on a similar point and O'Brien and Bosc would have been helpful. I rose on a question of privilege regarding a member in this place who made statements referring to me during his own question of privilege. I rose and made my argument. The Speaker took the matter under consideration. That was almost six months ago and there has been no response yet to that question of privilege I raised on November 18. Considering the seriousness of the situation, this calls for some attention yet again.

I will now refer to examples of how important and sensitive things are. Page 614 of O'Brien and Bosc has to do with something as simple as references to members by name. It says:

Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.

Again, here is another reference that says that making allegations or insults or otherwise questioning the character, honesty or integrity of another member of Parliament are absolutely out of order.

There are more references, but I believe that I have given sufficient argument at this time. Having taken the weekend to consider what happened, reading it many times, and seeing some statements even in today's press, there was no choice. I have to defend myself.

If those statements had been made outside of this chamber, I would have ample grounds to seek redress in the courts for libel, slander and defamation of character.

In May 2009 I had the honour of being awarded a fellowship by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. It is the highest honour that can be bestowed on a chartered accountant by his or her profession. That honour is bestowed on only 3% of the total membership of the institute.

Being a chartered accountant in good standing for over 35 years, there is a code of conduct and a code of ethics. It is very strict. If any of the matters that the member alleges were true, complaints could be made against me to my own profession. It would be terribly, terribly embarrassing for me if I had to go before my own profession and defend myself against allegations which have made against me.

It would disrupt me and there are other potential consequences. But when I read it in paper, when I hear members from the Conservative Party across the way laughing and chiding me, I understand that they think this is just politics, but everyone here is a real person. They have a reputation. They want to serve here to the best of their ability and they hope to leave here with their good name intact.

However, my good name has been attacked by the member. I know the member well enough to be absolutely surprised that these words came from him. I would never have guessed it. There is more to it.

I take this extremely seriously. I have taken the time to open up to the House to tell members that I believe we have a very serious problem here where members have taken advantage of the opportunity to say things in this place, which no member has any recourse whatsoever to do anything.

Speaker Parent once said that once it is on the record, it is hard to retract it. It is almost impossible. It is like telling a jury to disregard the comment.

I would like to make one last reference which may be helpful. It is in O'Brien and Bosc, page 74, and has to do with what is called the Pallett case. This particular case has an option for the Speaker. It states:

The new citation in Beauchesne enabled successive Speakers to keep a tighter rein on questions of privilege, even though practice required that the interventions at least be heard, however briefly, before being ruled on. The prima facie condition was invoked most often, although a number of other cases were refused because they were not raised at the proper time. Several cases arose which permitted the Speaker to find that debate on a matter of privilege should go forward, with the result that a body of precedents began to take shape. For example, a 1959 case (known as the Pallett case) led Speaker Michener to declare that a proposed motion in which the conduct of a Member was alluded to was not, prima facie, a matter of privilege and could not be given precedence because the proposed motion was not a specific complaint against the Member, a ruling frequently cited in subsequent years.

In other words, there still could be a debate in this place on the subject matter that I have raised, specifically noted in the Speaker's letter of last February asking members to deal with this.

I have raised this question of privilege because I believe that it has impinged on my integrity, my honesty, my character, my ethics and my reputation. I have to defend myself. This is my only opportunity to do that and it is my only opportunity to have this matter corrected. I believe that the facts, as presented by the member for Peace River, are incorrect, or stated in a way which leads to these impacts on me.

As a consequence, I do not believe for a minute that withdrawing that statement or even an apology would be acceptable. I believe that this must be looked into because it is now over a year after the Speaker has admonished the House for these attacks on other members of Parliament. The procedure and House affairs committee has to look at this and we have to deal with it.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege, my privileges and my rights, I would be prepared to move an appropriate motion.

[Privilege, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 6 I gave notice to the chair of a matter arising out of the statement by the member for Peace River just prior to question period.

You issued a letter, Mr. Speaker, dated February 26, 2009, to House leaders concerning members' statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31. That is the reason why I have raised this privilege. You expressed your concern about what was happening. The letter to the House leaders states:

In recent days a number of Members' Statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31 have caused me some concern.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice at pages—

That has been amended now with the second edition of O'Brien and Bosc at page 422.

—sets out guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at early stage any trend in this direction. As such, I am writing to advise you that I will vigorously enforce the authority given to me by Standing Order 31 to cut off Members if, in my opinion, improper statements are made.

This letter is signed by the Speaker. A carbon copy was sent to all whips and encouraged them to inform members of their parties of the Speaker's approach in this regard.

Obviously the matter has become untenable. It is out of hand. The statement I am rising on is probably the worst thing that has happened to me in my over 16 years as a member of Parliament. I want to read into the record the offensive S. O. 31 made by the member for Peace River. It can be found on page 2459 of May 6 House of Commons Debates. The member states:

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Liberal chair of the ethics committee showed yet again the ethical bankruptcy of the Liberal Party, when it was revealed that he had a private conversation with the interim Information Commissioner about an ongoing investigation.

Is this how the Liberal Party respects the independent officers of Parliament? All members of the House should believe in respecting due process, all members should believe in respecting the independence of officers of Parliament.

No member of the House should be engaged in a private conversation with a legal authority about an ongoing investigation in the middle of that investigation.

Yet, the member for Mississauga South threw due process and respect for the independent authority of that officer completely out the window by attempting to influence, interfere or direct that independent officer of Parliament.

This is highly inappropriate, grossly unethical, and shows yet again why the Liberal Party cannot be trusted.

I do not think I have to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, how these allegations are all directed at myself.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have no recourse to defend myself. If I do not, then it is important that I take the consequences. As I said, this is so serious that I had to rise on this matter.

I should make reference to Standing Order 18 as it regards using offensive words against either House or against any member thereof, with which the House is well familiar. I can also refer to page 618 of O'Brien and Bosc which states:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

That is footnote 176.

That is footnote 176. It also includes, “any allegation that a member has lied or misled the House”. This is a very important aspect of this. Certain allegations in the statement by the member for Peace River he knew were incorrect and yet he proceeded to make the statement even when he knew the facts were different. It goes on to say:

Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.

That is Speaker Michener's ruling of June 19, 1959, which I wanted to raise with you, Mr. Speaker.

I should indicate that I had to wait for the blues to ensure I had the words and the statement absolutely correct. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the House to give proper notice and to rise at the late hour of the day on Thursday. I had to catch my plane home to attend to parliamentary business.

I want to raise this also in the context of freedoms of speech. I refer O'Brien and Bosc, pages 97 and 98 and I think that this helps with the essence because it does refer broadly. There is no question, and I will not read all of this. I want to be concise. It states on page 98:

It states on page 98, “Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it”. That refers to the immunity privileges that we have here, that nothing we say in here can be used against us outside of this chamber and the same goes for things that are said in committee, for instance. It goes on to say, “By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences”, and Mr. Speaker, this really is serious. If the members are not interested in allowing me to have freedom of speech—

[Sébastien's Law (protecting the public from violent young offenders), May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very serious about Bill C-4 and the need to take into account that there are other social factors related to the incidence of crime and public safety. I am interested in prevention. With regard to fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol-related birth defects, it means that the government needs to start investing in programs to deal with those who have a tendency to commit crime in Canada as young offenders.